/m/nationals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Strasburg blew past the 70 IP mark in his last start, so it's not surprising that he is injured now. Unbelievable how reckless the Nats have been with their talented young righty! I hope that a) Strasburg is OK, and that b) the front office has learned from this and limits Strasburg to no more than 65 IP from here on out.

Actually, Rizzo and Co. have claimed that the Nats are well-stocked to contend for the next 4-5 years, so no worries about 2013. They'll just take a flyer this season and win it all in 20142015 2016...

It clearly may have been a bad decision, but if they made this bad decision trying to maximize total value from him to the ballclub, how is that hubris? They might have been undervaluing their chances last year and overvaluing their odds in future years, but I still don't think it goes all the way to hubris.

They made a call. Many people criticized them for it. They stuck with their decision. I just don't think that is necessarily hubris. Wrong? Likely, but it is also possible that they let him pitch last year and he sucks and gets reinjured and we are in exactly the same place. Sometimes people get injured and their is no good decision.

And no I am not defending the decision, it was likely wrong. I just think folks are far to sure they know what the right decision was and are too willing to cast stones at people who disagree with them.

but if they made this bad decision trying to maximize total value from him to the ballclub, how is that hubris?

It's hubris because they had a chance to win the World Series and punted it.

They made a call. Many people criticized them for it. They stuck with their decision. I just don't think that is necessarily hubris.

The vast majority of people, in every possible baseball community imaginable, criticized them for it. They stuck with their decision, even though it wasn't backed up by convincing evidence as far as we know, and showed total inflexibility in doing so, which raises the question if Strasburg's 2013 is over, since Mike Rizzo told us Strasburg cannot in any circumstance survive being shut down for an extended length of time.

At its core, a team didn't throw their best pitcher in the playoffs because they thought it would protect his ability to pitch in potential future playoff appearances. How is that not hubris?

Wrong? Likely, but it is also possible that they let him pitch last year and he sucks and gets reinjured and we are in exactly the same place. Sometimes people get injured and their is no good decision.

If he gets reinjured at the end of 2012, then fine, at least they tried. But they didn't try and he got reinjured anyway. Strasburg is injury prone and the Nationals seem to think he has only a finite number of bullets in his arm (an idea that has gained traction recently that I don't think is true, but whatever). Great but it's their duty to use the bullets in ways that best benefit the team, like the postseason. Also, the man's a Boras client. They could wash his balls after every start and he'll sign for the highest bidder. They have no obligation, in fact they have a duty if they think he has limited bullets, to leave as little of his arm to a competitor as possible. I'm not suggesting they throw him for 150 pitches every four days, but if they really feel this way then they shouldn't baby him. Flags fly forever, free agents don't.

And no I am not defending the decision, it was likely wrong. I just think folks are far to sure they know what the right decision was and are too willing to cast stones at people who disagree with them.

The Nats put their necks out for this one, going against a lot of baseball wisdom and not a small amount of common sense either. Their strategy only makes sense if you bank on future playoff appearances, which can be a fleeting thing in baseball (bet the 2007 Indians thought they'd be back too). Admittedly it's still early, but Strasburg seems to have not increased his puny durability one bit, and the Nats are below .500. If they miss out this year, there's only three more years before he signs somewhere else.

It's hubris because they had a chance to win the World Series and punted it.

Not to get all definitional, but I still think hubris is the wrong word. I don't think it is "excessive pride or self confidence" that led to their decision, I think it was more likely a mistake in understanding the dynamics of "sieze the day" versus pitchers health.

At its core, a team didn't throw their best pitcher in the playoffs because they thought it would protect his ability to pitch in potential future playoff appearances. How is that not hubris?

Like so many others, this statement tells me that you didn't pay close attention to Strasburg toward the end of last season. He was starting to smell like 2 day old fish. Keep him active to pitch in the playoffs and he likely would have smelled like 3 day old fish and the Nats might not even have made it to Game 5.

Now, maybe Strasburg at 60% effectiveness still would have been better than what they had at full effectiveness, but that's a guessing game. What I did see at the time did not cause me to question the shutdown decision much, he looked like he needed it.

#20 -- Exaclty. Gio, Zimm and Jackson all had excellent to good seasons in 2012. in their 4 starts, they were bad to awful. Why is it assumed that Strasburg would have had pitched two gems a month after he was clearly struggling to finish the season?

"What if's" work both ways. If Werth doesn't hit that ninth-inning home run in Game 4, or if Tyler Moore's bloop single doesn't fall in Game 1 to score two unearned(!) runs, the Nats lose this series in 3 or 4, and most folks would remember the series by the Cardinals' two eight-run blowout wins. Folks are attributing WAY too much to one starting pitcher's ability to turn around a series.

Like so many others, this statement tells me that you didn't pay close attention to Strasburg toward the end of last season. He was starting to smell like 2 day old fish. Keep him active to pitch in the playoffs and he likely would have smelled like 3 day old fish and the Nats might not even have made it to Game 5.

That's why you give him 2-4 weeks off when he started struggling, and then some minor league tune-ups. If he still looks bad in the last 2-3 weeks of Sept, then you shut him down.

Like so many others, this statement tells me that you didn't pay close attention to Strasburg toward the end of last season. He was starting to smell like 2 day old fish.

In his next-to-last start of the season, Strasburg threw six shutout innings (against the Cardinals!), striking out nine, allowing two hits and one walk. He got hit hard in his next start, his 28th start of the season, then got shut down.

Yes, he had also been hit hard in start 26, but starts 25 and 27 were both brilliant. In fact, his ERA in August had been his second-lowest of the season, after only April. He pitched better in August than he had in May, June or July, and that doesn't include the gem against the Cardinals, which was on September 2.

"What if's" work both ways. If Werth doesn't hit that ninth-inning home run in Game 4, or if Tyler Moore's bloop single doesn't fall in Game 1 to score two unearned(!) runs, the Nats lose this series in 3 or 4, and most folks would remember the series by the Cardinals' two eight-run blowout wins. Folks are attributing WAY too much to one starting pitcher's ability to turn around a series.

If the Nats lose in 3 or 4 game with 2 blowout losses the uproar for benching Strasburg would have been much much huger. The only thing that dampened the uproar was the late inning heroics, the bloop singles, and the Nationals getting to the 9th inning of game 5.